You apparently have faith that a clump of cells or a fetus is a human and should be afforded the accompanying rights and privileges. And yet this "thing" (for lack of a better word) is completely undeveloped, lacks sentience, and is incapable of surviving outside the womb. It's a potential human, and that's being generous.
But you don't have to assume that I am a real person. I am a real person. I can make that claim. You are saying that we must assume something is a person where we can't really say if it's a person or not. We know it is a human embryo that can become a person but nobody knows at what point a person actually appears. You want to say that where we don't know we can't tread, but others say it looks like an amoeba to me. Your point of view, I think, is totally consistent and moral but to my thinking excludes the rational. I don't know where life begins, but if we draw absolute lines we can't do research that has the potential to improve human life. Personally, I don't see crossing the line with stem cell research will lead to a world of Soylent Green. That some care has to be taken that we don't go down that road is something with which I would agree. You basically close the road to research with great potential based on unknows in a moral theory. Where man faces the unknown is the place where reason should apply. Humanity evolves and it seems to me we have to feel our way.
Again, if we knew all the answers before we did the experiments it wouldn't be called science . . . it would be politics or religion.
My specialty is pediatric neuropsychopharmacology. Five decades ago many psychiatrists believed lobotomy was an effective method for treating Communism, homosexuality, and nymphomania.
If not for the fortuitous discovery of chlorpromazine in the early 50s, millions of Americans would still be warehoused in sanitariums . . . if not prison. Deciphering the basic pharmacology of chlorpromazine not only led to the dopamine theory of schizophrenia (Arvid Carlsson 2000 Nobel) but it also led to intelligent drug search/design which has produced multiple classes of therapeutics that work primarily by blocking dopamine receptors in the brain. Point of fact, these drugs are used not only for schizophrenia but other psychoses (depresssion, other affective illness, dementia), bipolar disorder, all cause aggression, obsessive compulsive disorder, tic disorders, and autism (although its not very good).
In fact, one of the most effective 2nd generation antipsychotics (olanzapine) was developed using the earliest designed antipsychotic on the planet (clozapine) and despite being first its also the best. Clozapine was first released in Europe in the 1970s but it was withdrawn due to occasionally fatal cases of agranulocytosis. Olanzapine isn't quite as good as clozapine but it doesn't kill . . . well . . . it probably doesn't kill . . . at least it doesn't kill by agranulocytosis.
Point is . . . aside from vaccine development it's unlikely that ANY use of R&D funds would draw greater long term health/society benefit than embryonic stem cell research.
During my wayward days as an MD/PhD student my mentor had been approached by DARPA about one of his drugs in development. He specializes in dopamine neurotransmission with a focus on therapeutics for Parkinson Dz (PD). In the 90s, one of the drugs in human trials in Europe was notable for its moderate efficacy for treating PD and its profound ability to induce nausea and vomiting. You can imagine what DARPA was interested in . . . but its nearly impossible to weaponize . . . at least with current technology of drug delivery.
On the positive side though . . . the nausea/vomiting is quite transient b/c the drug has a very short half-life . . . think sick stick from Demolition Man.
How much have we spent on figuring out better ways to kill ourselves. If stem cell research threatens to grow to similar proportions I'll start to worry, thanks.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
My own feeling is that the "ethical debate" about embryonic stem cell research is a complete non-issue - these are just clumps of cells that aren't viable and which, in many instances, would simply be destroyed if not used for stem cell research. You might as well argue that male masturbation creates an ethical dilemma, in that the sperm might otherwise be used to create a child.
Fair enough, in my opinion, but this does not address what I see as a larger debate, the problem of the tremendous religious fear of secular humanism. If man is the measure of all things and man is evil then only an absolute inviolate law can save him. My answer to this, of course, is that man is not evil but acts with evil out of self hate. Where self hate is the unconscious motivation man becomes a monster, and where his true self shines there comes deep respect for life and even, if I may say so, the invention of absolute rules designed to save us from ourselves. The problem then, in my opinion, is to negotiate these two extremes by taking into account understandings of where things can lead. Is there a way not to be chained by absolutes and not slide down the slippery slope where life is seen as worthless. On a slope todays horror is tomorrows non issue.
This is why I think these issues need public vetting and input from all sides. We need all our human wisdom to negotiate such waters.
Originally posted by: Termagant
Yeah because taxpayer money never gets handed out to companies, let alone research universities.
I have no problem buying stock in corporations I want to invest in, donating money to universities I support or just plain giving money into charities. As for the government forcing me to donate money to charities, well that's just plain absurd...
Not to de-rail the thread, please continue...
No. As I have stated repeatedly, I have no faith one way or the other. I hold that I do not know whether it is or is not a person. However, to be willing to dispose of it without knowing whether it is or is not is to be willing to dispose of it if it is.
But how can I objectively know that you are a person? What means can we objectively test whether you are a person? Without such objective criteria in place, it is not ethically feasible to make a decision of such gravity. Right now, the law says you are a person and that a fetus becomes a person as soon as its last part passes the birth canal. I question whether the law is right, as it seems clear to me that physical displacement of the fetus is not a very logical grounds for a declaration of personhood. It is in the definition of this point of the onset of personhood that interests me, not the slippery slope that you mention. If we can say with certainty that the cells are not a person, then by all means - have at them. However, as I have said before, if you're willing to sacrifice these cells when you do not know whether it is or is not a person, you're willing to sacrifice them if they were a person. After all, I may speculate that you are nothing but a very clever bot posting messages in this internet forum. Does that entitle me to call a hit squad to the IP address that is posting your messages and have you who, for all I know, may or may not be a person, killed? I am merely arguing that I need some objective criteria that tell me whether you are or are not a person before I call for your destruction. To do otherwise is to willfully destroy you if you are a person.
But it seems to me that such objective criterion do not and cannot exist and that is why this argument appeals to you. You can't find any way out as you present it. Suppose instead that I am either a bot or a person and I also am in posession of a detonator that might kill a real person and the odds I'm real and that my bomb will kill are 50 50. Now do you kill me or not?
You can ask yourself how precious your life was before you were born and you can weigh that against potential benefits of such research. We don't know and we will never know when a person begins. By that token if you do wrong you will never know it, but you will know you blocked research that could save lives. Why not go with what is known?
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe Moonbeam is just a self-hating fetus?
So much so I used to kick my Mother.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But it seems to me that such objective criterion do not and cannot exist and that is why this argument appeals to you. You can't find any way out as you present it. Suppose instead that I am either a bot or a person and I also am in posession of a detonator that might kill a real person and the odds I'm real and that my bomb will kill are 50 50. Now do you kill me or not?
You can ask yourself how precious your life was before you were born and you can weigh that against potential benefits of such research. We don't know and we will never know when a person begins. By that token if you do wrong you will never know it, but you will know you blocked research that could save lives. Why not go with what is known?
Moonbeam, how do you know this?
^^ I don't know if Moonbeam is a scientist or not but my answer would be that it's highly unlikely that we will ever know when a person begins. Two primary reasons:
1) Personhood is a social/cultural construct . . . not a biological one. In fact, there's a great diversity amongst human societies as to when an individual gets personhood. Those that claim Biblical or other supernatural insights into the nature of personhood are working beyond the realm of science.
2) 'Moral' opponents to ES research typically don't ascribe any special status to sperm or eggs but they do to fertilized eggs. Again, that's not a scientific argument. The only special status we ascribe is that a fertilized egg has a full complement of DNA (if its normal) and will indeed have the potential to develop into a human . . . if it implants, develops, and delivered live. Functionally, preventing fertilization (from condoms to Plan B) is no different from preventing implantation.
Science will never have an answer for what zealots are claiming; except to the possibility that there's something special about the maternal environment (beyond just simple implantation) that impacts a newly fertilized ovum. If that's the case, then science would argue the fertilized egg is even LESS human that currently presumed.
1) Personhood is a social/cultural construct . . . not a biological one. In fact, there's a great diversity amongst human societies as to when an individual gets personhood. Those that claim Biblical or other supernatural insights into the nature of personhood are working beyond the realm of science.
2) 'Moral' opponents to ES research typically don't ascribe any special status to sperm or eggs but they do to fertilized eggs. Again, that's not a scientific argument. The only special status we ascribe is that a fertilized egg has a full complement of DNA (if its normal) and will indeed have the potential to develop into a human . . . if it implants, develops, and delivered live. Functionally, preventing fertilization (from condoms to Plan B) is no different from preventing implantation.
Science will never have an answer for what zealots are claiming; except to the possibility that there's something special about the maternal environment (beyond just simple implantation) that impacts a newly fertilized ovum. If that's the case, then science would argue the fertilized egg is even LESS human that currently presumed.
So, it seems that your argument is that the potential benefit to humanity as a whole is greater than the potential of any individual person. If this is true, shouldn't we turn all embryos into stem cell research materials? What if one of these persons would discover a cure for MS without using stem cells, but never got the chance because he was consumed for research purposes? This is but one reason why, as much as I like the mathematical simplicity, purely utilitarian calculations can never work in cases involving human lives. The variables have an infinite standard deviation in your calculation, rendering the results inherently meaningless.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But it seems to me that such objective criterion do not and cannot exist and that is why this argument appeals to you. You can't find any way out as you present it. Suppose instead that I am either a bot or a person and I also am in posession of a detonator that might kill a real person and the odds I'm real and that my bomb will kill are 50 50. Now do you kill me or not?
You can ask yourself how precious your life was before you were born and you can weigh that against potential benefits of such research. We don't know and we will never know when a person begins. By that token if you do wrong you will never know it, but you will know you blocked research that could save lives. Why not go with what is known?
You're right that I don't think much of my life before I was born. But I do think much of what my life has become as a natural progression from what I was before. Maybe I'm being selfish when I say I would not sacrifice my life before I have a chance to live it, but that's how I feel. The experience of my life, even if it was shortened or the quality lowered by a disease that ESC research could potentially cure, would still be my life, with its own shortcomings, great moments, and achievements that define the human experience. These things simply cannot be subtracted from an equation to arrive at the conclusion that the world would be a better place if my embryo was divided and sold for research.
So on that account should 'parents' be able to give them away? Should 'parents' be able to destroy them? How about keep them in the SubZero?Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, it seems that your argument is that the potential benefit to humanity as a whole is greater than the potential of any individual person. If this is true, shouldn't we turn all embryos into stem cell research materials? What if one of these persons would discover a cure for MS without using stem cells, but never got the chance because he was consumed for research purposes? This is but one reason why, as much as I like the mathematical simplicity, purely utilitarian calculations can never work in cases involving human lives. The variables have an infinite standard deviation in your calculation, rendering the results inherently meaningless.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But it seems to me that such objective criterion do not and cannot exist and that is why this argument appeals to you. You can't find any way out as you present it. Suppose instead that I am either a bot or a person and I also am in posession of a detonator that might kill a real person and the odds I'm real and that my bomb will kill are 50 50. Now do you kill me or not?
You can ask yourself how precious your life was before you were born and you can weigh that against potential benefits of such research. We don't know and we will never know when a person begins. By that token if you do wrong you will never know it, but you will know you blocked research that could save lives. Why not go with what is known?
You're right that I don't think much of my life before I was born. But I do think much of what my life has become as a natural progression from what I was before. Maybe I'm being selfish when I say I would not sacrifice my life before I have a chance to live it, but that's how I feel. The experience of my life, even if it was shortened or the quality lowered by a disease that ESC research could potentially cure, would still be my life, with its own shortcomings, great moments, and achievements that define the human experience. These things simply cannot be subtracted from an equation to arrive at the conclusion that the world would be a better place if my embryo was divided and sold for research.
No to all of the above. The ethics of in vitro fertilization are a related topic to say the least. I am opposed to the manner in which this practice is carried out today (i.e. the production of an excessive number of embryos, coupled with their subsequent storage/destruction), if not the entire idea of IVF.
CW: So, it seems that your argument is that the potential benefit to humanity as a whole is greater than the potential of any individual person.
M: I am saying there is no way to know. I often have the feeling when I kill a fly, which I seldom do by the way, that I just crushed the only extant gene that would have lead to a super civilization some billion years from now.
CW: If this is true, shouldn't we turn all embryos into stem cell research materials?
M: Well I see nothing to suggest this is what logically follows.
CW: What if one of these persons would discover a cure for MS without using stem cells, but never got the chance because he was consumed for research purposes?
M: It will be one of those things I will never know. It might also be the dude who grows up to be Hitler 2
This is but one reason why, as much as I like the mathematical simplicity, purely utilitarian calculations can never work in cases involving human lives.
M: These aren't really calculations but speculations.
CW: The variables have an infinite standard deviation in your calculation, rendering the results inherently meaningless.
M: But as I pointed out, for every potential bad there is a corresponding potential good. We might be getting rid of Hitler or Jesus, no?
CW: You're right that I don't think much of my life before I was born. But I do think much of what my life has become as a natural progression from what I was before. Maybe I'm being selfish when I say I would not sacrifice my life before I have a chance to live it, but that's how I feel. The experience of my life, even if it was shortened or the quality lowered by a disease that ESC research could potentially cure, would still be my life, with its own shortcomings, great moments, and achievements that define the human experience. These things simply cannot be subtracted from an equation to arrive at the conclusion that the world would be a better place if my embryo was divided and sold for research.
M: But all of this is a matter of hindsight. At the point where you don't think much of your life is where it would have ended. That is the end and none of the rest would have come to be. Life is sacred to the living who are conscious of life. It means nothing to a rock or an amoeba as such but life seeks to preserve itself. Life is a profound experience for the conscious mind and a mystery the mind can't fathom.
But I think the rational mind can't make a trap of that feeling. The absolute reverence for any genetic material that potentially could become human leads to illogical behavior. There are monks who sweep the path of bugs before they walk so they don't step on living things. Us 'normal' people think that's absurd. You have a similar belief if somewhat less extreme. We have walked down a road that leads to scientific manipulations of life that transcend anything our old ethical systems were prepared to handle and it's up to us to find our way in uncharted waters, I think.
M: I am saying there is no way to know. I often have the feeling when I kill a fly, which I seldom do by the way, that I just crushed the only extant gene that would have lead to a super civilization some billion years from now.
CW: If this is true, shouldn't we turn all embryos into stem cell research materials?
M: Well I see nothing to suggest this is what logically follows.
CW: What if one of these persons would discover a cure for MS without using stem cells, but never got the chance because he was consumed for research purposes?
M: It will be one of those things I will never know. It might also be the dude who grows up to be Hitler 2
This is but one reason why, as much as I like the mathematical simplicity, purely utilitarian calculations can never work in cases involving human lives.
M: These aren't really calculations but speculations.
CW: The variables have an infinite standard deviation in your calculation, rendering the results inherently meaningless.
M: But as I pointed out, for every potential bad there is a corresponding potential good. We might be getting rid of Hitler or Jesus, no?
CW: You're right that I don't think much of my life before I was born. But I do think much of what my life has become as a natural progression from what I was before. Maybe I'm being selfish when I say I would not sacrifice my life before I have a chance to live it, but that's how I feel. The experience of my life, even if it was shortened or the quality lowered by a disease that ESC research could potentially cure, would still be my life, with its own shortcomings, great moments, and achievements that define the human experience. These things simply cannot be subtracted from an equation to arrive at the conclusion that the world would be a better place if my embryo was divided and sold for research.
M: But all of this is a matter of hindsight. At the point where you don't think much of your life is where it would have ended. That is the end and none of the rest would have come to be. Life is sacred to the living who are conscious of life. It means nothing to a rock or an amoeba as such but life seeks to preserve itself. Life is a profound experience for the conscious mind and a mystery the mind can't fathom.
But I think the rational mind can't make a trap of that feeling. The absolute reverence for any genetic material that potentially could become human leads to illogical behavior. There are monks who sweep the path of bugs before they walk so they don't step on living things. Us 'normal' people think that's absurd. You have a similar belief if somewhat less extreme. We have walked down a road that leads to scientific manipulations of life that transcend anything our old ethical systems were prepared to handle and it's up to us to find our way in uncharted waters, I think.
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But it seems to me that such objective criterion do not and cannot exist and that is why this argument appeals to you. You can't find any way out as you present it. Suppose instead that I am either a bot or a person and I also am in posession of a detonator that might kill a real person and the odds I'm real and that my bomb will kill are 50 50. Now do you kill me or not?
You can ask yourself how precious your life was before you were born and you can weigh that against potential benefits of such research. We don't know and we will never know when a person begins. By that token if you do wrong you will never know it, but you will know you blocked research that could save lives. Why not go with what is known?
Moonbeam, how do you know this?
Person hood, in my opinion is the state of self-aware consciousness. Thus the only way to know when a person becomes aware is to ask myself when I did, since I can never know the consciousness of another Thus I can never know, even if I know my own case, when anybody else becomes self aware. I also happen to have no idea when such a thing happened to me.
M: I am saying there is no way to know. I often have the feeling when I kill a fly, which I seldom do by the way, that I just crushed the only extant gene that would have lead to a super civilization some billion years from now. But as I pointed out, for every potential bad there is a corresponding potential good. We might be getting rid of Hitler or Jesus, no?
CW: So you concur that there is no way to know. My suggestion is that basing anything on a probability of doing good is inherently flawed. I suppose this because we do not know the probability that what we are doing is wrong, nor do we know the probability that something good can come of it. Thus, I must abide by my previous stance that we avoid doing wrong just for a chance at doing good. This is the ground that I stand on when I oppose Guantanamo Bay internment, torture, and other unjust means for the possibility of preventing future terrorist acts. If we violate the principle of justice, the outcome can never truly be considered positive.
M: But all of this is a matter of hindsight. At the point where you don't think much of your life is where it would have ended. That is the end and none of the rest would have come to be. Life is sacred to the living who are conscious of life. It means nothing to a rock or an amoeba as such but life seeks to preserve itself. Life is a profound experience for the conscious mind and a mystery the mind can't fathom.
CW: But we have the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom that comes with it. I know now that, given the choice, I would not have given my life away at this early stage of development for research purposes. Since I believe you previously agreed that the embryo simply another step inexorably forward on the continuum of human development, the interruption of that development is to willfully destroy the chance of having the human experience that the embryo will most likely have if nature were to take its course.
M: But I think the rational mind can't make a trap of that feeling. The absolute reverence for any genetic material that potentially could become human leads to illogical behavior. There are monks who sweep the path of bugs before they walk so they don't step on living things. Us 'normal' people think that's absurd. You have a similar belief if somewhat less extreme. We have walked down a road that leads to scientific manipulations of life that transcend anything our old ethical systems were prepared to handle and it's up to us to find our way in uncharted waters, I think.
CW: As I said, there is no question whether a fertilized egg is human. My question is why may we interrupt the continuum of development at some arbitrary stage. My stance is dissimilar to those monks in that I place a higher value on human life than the life of the cricket that might be trampled. Our society has become complacent in its protection of human life to the point where it is nearly disposable, where greater sympathy is attached to unborn animals than unborn humans:
Perhaps my notion is that the fundamental characteristic of the human condition is choice. These humans are being deprived of any choice in this matter. The decision being made isn't exactly trivial as far as these humans are concerned. If the decision goes one way, then these humans will never be allowed to choose anything for themselves. They will simply be swallowed up into the collective on the whim of another. This Borg-esque approach in which humans are assimilated is essentially a devaluing of the human race, where one individual is considered negligible as long as society deems they may benefit from his consumption.
CW: So you concur that there is no way to know. My suggestion is that basing anything on a probability of doing good is inherently flawed. I suppose this because we do not know the probability that what we are doing is wrong, nor do we know the probability that something good can come of it. Thus, I must abide by my previous stance that we avoid doing wrong just for a chance at doing good. This is the ground that I stand on when I oppose Guantanamo Bay internment, torture, and other unjust means for the possibility of preventing future terrorist acts. If we violate the principle of justice, the outcome can never truly be considered positive.
M: But all of this is a matter of hindsight. At the point where you don't think much of your life is where it would have ended. That is the end and none of the rest would have come to be. Life is sacred to the living who are conscious of life. It means nothing to a rock or an amoeba as such but life seeks to preserve itself. Life is a profound experience for the conscious mind and a mystery the mind can't fathom.
CW: But we have the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom that comes with it. I know now that, given the choice, I would not have given my life away at this early stage of development for research purposes. Since I believe you previously agreed that the embryo simply another step inexorably forward on the continuum of human development, the interruption of that development is to willfully destroy the chance of having the human experience that the embryo will most likely have if nature were to take its course.
M: But I think the rational mind can't make a trap of that feeling. The absolute reverence for any genetic material that potentially could become human leads to illogical behavior. There are monks who sweep the path of bugs before they walk so they don't step on living things. Us 'normal' people think that's absurd. You have a similar belief if somewhat less extreme. We have walked down a road that leads to scientific manipulations of life that transcend anything our old ethical systems were prepared to handle and it's up to us to find our way in uncharted waters, I think.
CW: As I said, there is no question whether a fertilized egg is human. My question is why may we interrupt the continuum of development at some arbitrary stage. My stance is dissimilar to those monks in that I place a higher value on human life than the life of the cricket that might be trampled. Our society has become complacent in its protection of human life to the point where it is nearly disposable, where greater sympathy is attached to unborn animals than unborn humans:
The sadness and regret expressed by Dr. Hueter are clearly due to his perhaps unconscious notion that these sharks, despite being unborn, were still sharks. They were simply at an earlier stage of development than would have allowed them to escape this untimely demise. Can we really say that, while we were saddened to see so many unborn humans consumed, we are glad that they unwillingly contributed to the betterment of the lives of others?
Perhaps my notion is that the fundamental characteristic of the human condition is choice. These humans are being deprived of any choice in this matter. The decision being made isn't exactly trivial as far as these humans are concerned. If the decision goes one way, then these humans will never be allowed to choose anything for themselves. They will simply be swallowed up into the collective on the whim of another. This Borg-esque approach in which humans are assimilated is essentially a devaluing of the human race, where one individual is considered negligible as long as society deems they may benefit from his consumption.
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps I was a vegetarian? But seriously, I care more about potential cures for diseases than I do about an undeveloped, insentient, potential human. Plus, it's not like there's a shortage of humans on this planet, right?
Point taken. Given that the current legal rights and protections afforded an unborn fetus is essentially nil, what I believe you're proposing is that we expand those legal protections to extend to the unboard fetus effectively from fertilization. I'd suggest that if you want the current laws changed, you should offer up some valid reason(s) why we should do so.
"I don't know" doesn't strike me as a convincing argument.
But "I don't know" is exactly what the USSC stated in Roe v Wade, which it used to overturn all the abortion laws in the land and even effectively legislate new abortion laws. I agree - it's ridiculous. Perhaps the most prudent approach in cases where we can't reach a clear decision in this manner is to allow the elected officials to do their job, rather than leave it up to an oligarchy to make such important decisions.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Point taken. Given that the current legal rights and protections afforded an unborn fetus is essentially nil, what I believe you're proposing is that we expand those legal protections to extend to the unboard fetus effectively from fertilization. I'd suggest that if you want the current laws changed, you should offer up some valid reason(s) why we should do so.
"I don't know" doesn't strike me as a convincing argument.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter